> the only way to force companies is by spending your money somewhere else
Or, you know, enforcing new legislation that forces the company to do what you want...
Or, you know, enforcing new legislation that forces the company to do what you want...
We all know violence and threat (what you suggest) works. Some of us are trying to decrease the amount of what you suggest in the world.
New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when it's much easier just to stop going to Facebook? Only a perverse sadist would prefer legislation over ostracism.
Right, this is why the US is such a shiny beacon of safe products, consumer-friendliness, and consumer rights compared to the horrible European markets... :)
I always find this sentiment on HN so amusing. "Legislation hurts companies, we should all just ostracise/boycott companies instead!" despite all practical evidence suggesting that legislation actually gets things done. Like, I can actually get fast affordable internet here, unlike when I was in the US :)
On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job done, we shouldn't shy away from it. To describe someone as "a perverse sadist" for wanting to legislate pseudonyms on social networks is bonkers.
In other words: if legislation.necessary? then enact else avoid.
> On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job done, we shouldn't shy away from it.
In other words: if issue.important? and legislation.effective? then enact else avoid.
These two are contradictory. Which is it for you?